Comments on: A very moveable feast http://www.bibliographing.com/2009/07/20/moveable-feast/ or, writing about books Tue, 07 Sep 2010 23:01:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: litlove http://www.bibliographing.com/2009/07/20/moveable-feast/comment-page-1/#comment-2125 litlove Sun, 02 Aug 2009 08:21:34 +0000 http://www.bibliographing.com/?p=1716#comment-2125 Oooh this is bad. You can't have people coming along after the event and altering the publication, no matter what the grounds! Montaigne changed his essays a lot over his lifetime, and some current publications of them will bring all the different editions together with cunning (if occasionally confusing) textual markers. Publishers can do that if they wish, but this unrepentant censorship sets a dangerous precedent for relatives to kick up a fuss whenever they don't appreciate the way a family has been represented. Not good! Oooh this is bad. You can’t have people coming along after the event and altering the publication, no matter what the grounds! Montaigne changed his essays a lot over his lifetime, and some current publications of them will bring all the different editions together with cunning (if occasionally confusing) textual markers. Publishers can do that if they wish, but this unrepentant censorship sets a dangerous precedent for relatives to kick up a fuss whenever they don’t appreciate the way a family has been represented. Not good!

]]> By: nicole http://www.bibliographing.com/2009/07/20/moveable-feast/comment-page-1/#comment-1923 nicole Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:36:01 +0000 http://www.bibliographing.com/?p=1716#comment-1923 Yeah, I mean, I am definitely troubled, but then I feel bad for being troubled, because Hemingway obviously didn't shepherd the first version 100% through to completion either. It just all becomes about, who do you believe? I'm inclined to believe Hotchner and Scribner, but I don't personally have a great basis for that. And of course, in a sort of similar case, I am <em>thrilled</em> that Dmitri Nabokov decided to publish the forthcoming <em>Original of Laura</em> against his father's wishes. But he's not touching it at all, just publishing it. I am much more comfortable with that, but should I be, really? Yeah, I mean, I am definitely troubled, but then I feel bad for being troubled, because Hemingway obviously didn’t shepherd the first version 100% through to completion either. It just all becomes about, who do you believe? I’m inclined to believe Hotchner and Scribner, but I don’t personally have a great basis for that.

And of course, in a sort of similar case, I am thrilled that Dmitri Nabokov decided to publish the forthcoming Original of Laura against his father’s wishes. But he’s not touching it at all, just publishing it. I am much more comfortable with that, but should I be, really?

]]> By: Biblibio http://www.bibliographing.com/2009/07/20/moveable-feast/comment-page-1/#comment-1921 Biblibio Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:44:44 +0000 http://www.bibliographing.com/?p=1716#comment-1921 There's something troubling here, no? I mean, sure, we can't know what changes Hemingway might have made but that the original might go out of print is a little disconcerting. And it seems unlikely that the grandson knows what Hemingway would and wouldn't have published... It seems so very odd that a descendant can just randomly decide to edit an established book, even if it's a posthumously published book anyways. My head is still spinning. There’s something troubling here, no? I mean, sure, we can’t know what changes Hemingway might have made but that the original might go out of print is a little disconcerting. And it seems unlikely that the grandson knows what Hemingway would and wouldn’t have published… It seems so very odd that a descendant can just randomly decide to edit an established book, even if it’s a posthumously published book anyways. My head is still spinning.

]]>